Paper available upon request.

NOTE: This is and introduction to the motivation for our paper – one that editors cannot accept in a cover letter because of lacking political correctness – and the abstract of our last paper sent to a journal of philosophy. It was rejected on account of being “too philosophical” and not being “scientific”. Find it in linkedin.

 

To understand what we mean by metaphysics we have produced the following course: Metaphysics,  Truth and Meaning: from logic and mathematics to ontology

(available upon request).

 

Rounding-out morality: mathematically representing human decision

 

 

The problem

 

 

This is the GREATEST INTELECTUAL FRAUD in history. Namely, to tell the ones that can think that “having an opinion” is “not scientific”, and therefore objectively worthless.

 

 

The politically objective or metaphysical ruler

In this way people can be turned into an instrument, or equivalently, into an objective scientist regulated by objective laws only, that seeks solutions to problems selected and delimited in scope by the ones that are allowed to have an opinion and are unregulated or unbounded by being godless while still supporting metaphysical imposition, i.e. the non-scientific and powerful politicians, businessmen, and the rest of the elite. The Western imposition of truth typically stands on the basis of metaphysical realism or derivatives, including anti-realism and radical idealism which are metaphysically the same through their obsession with, and tyrannical imposition of, truth, where “objectivity” and “natural law” are the objective result to be sought by the intentional and abstract “collective will of society”, even if sometimes unconsciously assumed, attempting to reduce all existence to the physico-mathematical object. Via such metaphysically twisted and obscure procedure the concept of “value” – moral value, ethical value, and the value of the whole of what is in general – obtains its metaphysically dubious support. The “non-scientific” metaphysical politicians, and therefore still essentially scientific humans or political “servants”, invoking “averaged” or “democratic” action regulated by the physico-mathematical law, are allowed to guess and have an opinion and in general comport as humans since they are humans dealing with human dealings, if only everything here is reduced to a commerce of, and between, humans and objects. By positioning themselves “outside the objective sciences”, these metaphysical politicians provide the “driving parameters”, or the “non formal” and therefore non semantically defined and also unregulated semantically while simultaneously semantically regulating by definition, imposition of axiomatic truth, to the mechanistic or objective clock that the mathematical object provides, i.e. their rules are not accounted for by higher level languages in the hierarchy of truth since they are “common parlance itself” that tells what “the formal language is” by invoking and enforcing metaphysical politics.

 

 

The scientist or objective servant

 

In contrast, the scientist is left in a position of “deficiency”, i.e. the scientist is present as a person in a purely objective manner (the absent-present human) and deficiently present as a human in the sense of bracketing out their humanity in favour of a metaphysics that obeys only objective truth. In science the “human” is left out in favour of objective truth, or equivalently, the world as a whole, including all life forms is claimed by the objective human or scientist as reservoir, quantified and at their disposal on request by the power structures. The search for objective truth is the greatest trap, displacing interpretation as worthless and preserving (conserving and retaining by violent imposition) an objective and descriptive world of facts, that is then parametrically determined, i.e. the scientifically quantified where only a set of “free parameters” are required to mechanistically drive the system as a clock, as worthy. It remains to be seen how this objective description is to be used objectively. In our book (The fabric of consciousness) we term the “scientist”, and more generally the blind obstinacy in the search for objective truth, the metaphysical or “human-object”, i.e. the human turned into an object.

 

 

Thinking reduced to mechanics supporting objectivity

 

That machines can only “objectively” manipulate objects by strictly “obeying” the rules of the programmer is precisely a main drawback of current AI, if by drawback we understand the inability, and not deficiency since a machine cannot be humanly deficient nor presently-absent, to be human by understanding the fact as other than the objective description of the fact, or what is the same, by understanding truth beyond a collection of certainties filed away as universal objects. Yet, the thinking person turned into a scientist is supposed to strictly describe the objective features, rules or laws of nature and deliver them over in the form of a listing, a “neutral” database or equation. While this is indeed possible, and the very requirement of science, claiming that the “unscientific” is worthless is a practical strategy to silence the ones with the potential to think. Since human intention lacks a universally valid reference, varies in time and is overall unscientific, which is equivalent to “untrue” in science and therefore irrelevant or easy to discard, the scientist focuses on the universal and unchanging laws of nature that allow, in the first place, for full control and manipulation over the objective object. This is a well kept secret. Namely, that a thinking person is best preserved as a “thinking tool” possibly with data science, that currently (2019) bombards all screens with courses that are supposedly teaching us how to think, or other skills to be hired for a salary in exchange for solving a scientific (objective) puzzle, i.e. discover laws or use them to build something, than as an autonomous being with the potential to rethink the people, entities and intentions of those that hire.

Einstein realised the danger of turning the scientist into a “logical tool” and realised that “logic free” and autonomous human decision, i.e. that which science wants to negate, must necessarily transcend “orthodox logic”. Here is the article of Einstein on this:

On the Moral Obligation of the Scientist – Albert Einsteinhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00963402.1952.11457266

 

Rounding-out morality: mathematically representing human decision

 

Abstract – unpublished paper available upon request

 

Moral codes are being established as a reference to machine “morality”. These mathematical constructs will be able to, in principle, issue decisions in a given situation and context by representing the most ethical one in any given scenario. Here we argue that while objective decisions can be made, expecting that these will be objectively valid for a subject is a belief based on the greatest misunderstanding of human existence, namely that the will of a person presencing an event can be decided objectively in any way.  First, if representing morality is “objectively” possible, it is not clear how an all-inclusive model can represent other than impersonal decisions. Second, any “objective” model based on public opinion will not be static. Rather, it will be a collection of views that we already know can be manipulated by power structures. We discuss the problem by exploring the recent history of AI, Cognitive Science, cartesian metaphysics and the “common sense problem” in relation to the question of being.

 

Some comments by reviewers and our reply

 

REVIEWER: “The word ‘generic’ signals the fact that the subsequent discussion is going to stay at the level of very general features of (allegedly) any such code, without any detailed evidence presented of what’s actually going on in the field under discussion.”

 

OUR CLAIM: It is here that Heidegger’s view, i.e. that the essence of quantifying is not quantitative – those who carry out the unfolding of representation (the world as picture) know nothing of this essence of the quantitative – Heidegger -, already explains what is going on in the background of all such codes generally.

There is no need to go and explain the models and how these manage, or not, to quantify morality, not that it could be done by discussing other than what we have done here, namely, addressing the intention of quantifying by the individuals – their subjective subjectivity along with any objectivity – not the actual act, validity or method of quantification. This is the most general we can be regarding anything quantitative in morality, but the reviewers are so immersed in metaphysics, that is, in the search for scientific truth, to be ultimately exploited to support commerce and the ones in power, this being its main purpose as any “project motivation letter can reveal”, that can’t, or don’t want to, see it.

 

Figure: The relation, the objective scientist modelling a relation and the human metaphysically relating to “the world”.

Top